One-year outcomes of conventional and accelerated collagen crosslinking in progressive keratoconus

95Citations
Citations of this article
66Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

We compared one-year outcomes of conventional (3 mW/cm 2, 365-nm ultraviolet-A light, 30 minutes) and accelerated (18 mW/cm 2, 365-nm ultraviolet-A light, 5 minutes) collagen crosslinking (CXL) in patients with progressive keratoconus. Main outcome measures were change in keratometry, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Nineteen patients in each group completed 1-year follow-up. Preoperatively, there were no inter-group differences for age, keratometry, corneal thickness, and spherical equivalent (p > 0.127). One year postoperatively, maximum and minimum keratometry were flattened by 1.6 diopters (p < 0.023) and 2 diopters (p < 0.047) respectively after conventional CXL, and, 0.47 diopters (p = 0.471) and 0.19 diopters (p = 0.120) respectively after accelerated CXL. Association analysis showed significant negative association between baseline maximum keratometry and change in maximum keratometry after accelerated CXL (p = 0.002) but not after conventional CXL (p = 0.110). Corneal thickness was reduced significantly in both groups (p = 0.017). An improvement in UCVA (p < 0.001) and BCVA (p < 0.022) was noted in both groups along with a reduction in spherical equivalent postoperatively (p < 0.026). There were no inter-group differences for any of the parameters postoperatively (p > 0.184). Although no statistically significant differences were observed between both treatment modalities, a more effective topographic flattening was observed with conventional CXL as compared to accelerated CXL in this study.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chow, V. W. S., Chan, T. C. Y., Yu, M., Wong, V. W. Y., & Jhanji, V. (2015). One-year outcomes of conventional and accelerated collagen crosslinking in progressive keratoconus. Scientific Reports, 5. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14425

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free